ELECTION OF DAIRY BOARD

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 27 June 1935, Page 7

ELECTION OF DAIRY BOARD

DIRECT VOTE OF PRODUCERS. CONFERENCE REJECTS REMIT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) PALMERSTON N., June 26. An alternation in the method of electing the Dairy Board so as to provide for a direct vote of the produceis on the principle of one-man-one-vote, was proposed by the Mercury Bay Dairv Company in a. remit at the National Dairy Conference to-day. lfie remit, which was rejected, expressed the view that the existing provisions for the election of dairy-farmers’ representatives to the board, ueie en tirely unsatisfactory and undemocratic, and should be amended to provide for the elimination of the tonnage basis and the abolition of the factory vote. Moving the remit on behalf ot the Mercury Bay company, Mr J. GBrowne said if it were passed it would be a strong indication that farmers were not satisfied to have full control of their own industry taken out ot their hands and given ta men not elected by anybody and not responsible to anyone. In many ways the new .dairy-in-o- legislation was not satisfactory, and the dictatorial powers given to the board were viewed with a great deal of suspicion and indignation. Even the elective lhembetrs of the board were not truly representative, and it -n-as verv questionable whether one member would have gained his seat by a direct’vote of the (industry. “The tonnage basis and the factory vote have eliminated every vestige of control by the individual producer, said Mr Browne. “Why not let us have the good old democratic principle of one-man-one-vote? We would then get rid of all this wire-pulling andpoli-tca-1 strategy.” The remit was seconded by Mr It. B. Cotter (Hinuera), who said that the powers of the producers were gradually being whittled away. They were now down to a point where the voting powers wero-in the hands of directors and them alone. It was quite possible for one man to be elected on a minority vote. It was not right to rob the individual producer of his vote. Mr Harbutt (Cambridge) pointed out that the members of the dairy board had only been elected in recent months, and suggested it was better that the question be for twelve months to give the, board an opportunity of following out the recommendations of the daily industry commission.

“It' the greatest tribunal in the land can be elected on the one-man-one-vote principle, why not the Dairy Board ? ’ asked Mr D. L. A. Astbury (Mangatoki). “Butter and cheese are placed before the rights of the individual. The ■one-man-one-vote principle has been taken away on the ground that hitherto only 40 per cent, of the producers voted. Why should that 40 per cent, have their right to vote removed from them?” Mr Seifert (Morrinsville) said his advice was to concentrate on holding what they already had and resist- any attempt to take that away from them. “We do not want to lose what we have,” he said. Mr J. It. Sinclair (Opotiki) said he believed that if the issue were put to individual farmers, they would favour the directors’ exercising vote. He knew that suppliers invariably consulted their directors as to the members of the board for whom they should vote. The remit was lost on the voices.